Spirit of Life [Archive]

Chanileslie

11th July 2004, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is this what Science tells us? Or, is this what you're telling us? And by all means, if it's written in a journal somewhere, please let us know. ;)

Provide some tangible evidence for a spirit and we can discuss it. But alas you won't, and like adherents to the Lock Ness monster myth and other exceptionally silly beliefs that fall under the category of "I wanna believe so that makes it true!" you will insist that you don't have to show any evidence for the absurd and will point to, "So lot of people believe it, so it must be so!" Yes, many people believed that trepanning was good at one time to treat mental illness also, but it doesn't mean that it is a viable medical treatment for mental illness or that it ever was.

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Chanileslie

Provide some tangible evidence for a spirit and we can discuss it. But alas you won't, and like adherents to the Lock Ness monster myth and other exceptionally silly beliefs that fall under the category of "I wanna believe so that makes it true!" you will insist that you don't have to show any evidence for the absurd and will point to, "So lot of people believe it, so it must be so!" Yes, many people believed that trepanning was good at one time to treat mental illness also, but it doesn't mean that it is a viable medical treatment for mental illness or that it ever was. The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face. The problem is, you can't see it.

Navigator

11th July 2004, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
As much as Science tries to pin life down, it will never catch the spirit. Heck, you can even nail people to the cross, and you still won't get it. Where did these people go? Obviously, their spirit is no longer with us.

Define "Spirit Of Life"

BillHoyt

11th July 2004, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
The spirit is not physical, so why do insist I prove it in that sense? Perhaps we should be looking elsewhere?

Irrelevant, brainlacchus. Either the spirit acts on the material universe, in which case we can use the standard approaches of science to verify such a thing exists, or it doesn't act on the material universe. In the latter case, it is totally lame and unworthy of consiideration.

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Navigator

Define "Spirit Of Life" That's a bit like asking me to define that which defines myself (and, everything else for that matter), in which case I'm really not the one to be defining here. And therein lies the problem you see. And, while I'm obviously not the intellectual giant here, not that I don't have one and make good use of it, the spirit doesn't require this. It's more a matter of being alive and knowing that you're alive and having a sense of appreciation for it, as well as an understanding about what motivates us. Which, is something everybody has to inquire about, not just me. So in many respects I'm not the one who should be answering that. While it's another way of saying we all have our own private life, and it's not my business to intrude upon that.

The things that I'm posting here on the Internet are more like signposts on the freeway, and people have to decide which route they want to take. If they want to go to California, fine. If they want to go to Texas, then so be it. However, I can't tell them where to go. This is where the spirit comes in which, determines what motivates us.

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Irrelevant, brainlacchus. Either the spirit acts on the material universe, in which case we can use the standard approaches of science to verify such a thing exists, or it doesn't act on the material universe. In the latter case, it is totally lame and unworthy of consiideration. The Great Spirit (a bit from the Native Americans (http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html) here) is like the influx of engery, which stirs everything into movement. Or if you will, the conductor in the orchestra.

BillHoyt

11th July 2004, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
The Great Spirit (a bit from the Native Americans (http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html) here) is like the influx of engery, which stirs everything into movement. Or if you will, the conductor in the orchestra.
Right. Flummery and fluffery. Where is the evidence for this ever-changing god of yours?

Life here is very simple, brainlacchus. If you believe in god without evidence, then say so. Sketpics and JREF have no problem with that. But you don't say that. You claim material evidence for this. So cough it up. What is the evidence that one of your gods is needed to motivate us? If you ever address that, you can be sure the next question will be: what motivates the gods?

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 05:57 AM

While we all have that which motivates us which, determines how we think, feel and act, that interacts with the energy that allows us to do this. This is what The Spirit entails. Therefore, if we want to study the spirit, we need to study about that which motivates us. Not its physical outcroppings, nor the electro-chemical processes which go on inside the brain (necessarily).

BillHoyt

11th July 2004, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
While we all have that which motivates us which, determines how we think, feel and act, that interacts with the energy that allows us to do this. This is what The Spirit entails. Therefore, if we want to study the spirit, we need to study about that which motivates us. Not its physical outcroppings, nor the electro-chemical processes which go on inside the brain (necessarily).
Evidence?

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Right. Flummery and fluffery. Where is the evidence for this ever-changing god of yours?

Life here is very simple, brainlacchus. If you believe in god without evidence, then say so. Sketpics and JREF have no problem with that. But you don't say that. You claim material evidence for this. So cough it up. What is the evidence that one of your gods is needed to motivate us? If you ever address that, you can be sure the next question will be: what motivates the gods? Unlike what you think Bill, God is not a tight-ass and is much more liberal than you could ever imagine. In fact you wouldn't be here goading me about the whole thing if it wasn't for that. ;)

Yes, and how many puppeteers did it take to pull Pinocchio's strings? Do you think you can answer that? In which case I ask, how many master puppeteers should it require to orchestrate the Universe?

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Evidence? For one thing, there is more evidence in our myths than you could possibly imagine. Are you at all familiar with Joseph Campbel? (http://www.online.pacifica.edu/cgl/) Then it's a good place to start.

thaiboxerken

11th July 2004, 09:57 AM

Science can't really "pin down" spirit, as science only deals with real objects.

Myths are not evidence of anything other than what people believed or believe. THey are not evidence of "spirit", just that people believe there is one.

BillHoyt

11th July 2004, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Unlike what you think Bill, God is not a tight-ass and is much more liberal than you could ever imagine. In fact you wouldn't be here goading me about the whole thing if it wasn't for that. ;)

Yes, and how many puppeteers did it take to pull Pinocchio's strings? Do you think you can answer that? In which case I ask, how many master puppeteers should it require to orchestrate the Universe?

Blah blah blah. Woof woof woof. You're a laughingstock.

BillHoyt

11th July 2004, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
For one thing, there is more evidence in our myths than you could possibly imagine. Are you at all familiar with Joseph Campbel? (http://www.online.pacifica.edu/cgl/) Then it's a good place to start.
I asked for evidence. Not myths. Not speculations. Not musings. Evidence.

brian0918

11th July 2004, 10:21 AM

http://www.fishing-catalog.com/SOSProd/trolling.jpg

Chanileslie

11th July 2004, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face. The problem is, you can't see it.

Yep, just as I thought. You evade the facts. So go on with you silly belief of the absurd and the rest of us will just sit here and snicker behind our hands at your ridiculousness.

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Chanileslie

Yep, just as I thought. You evade the facts. So go on with you silly belief of the absurd and the rest of us will just sit here and snicker behind our hands at your ridiculousness. No, it's very clear that you don't know where to look.

brian0918

11th July 2004, 03:40 PM

http://wizard.ae.krakow.pl/~drozdzj/graph/troll.jpg

Piscivore

11th July 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
...catch the spirit.

"Catch the spit" (http://www.lyricsspot.com/song.php?s=61848&lyrics=Mindless%20Self%20Indulgence%20Tom%20Sawyer )

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I asked for evidence. Not myths. Not speculations. Not musings. Evidence. You are in the Center of the Universe (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=61). ;)

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 08:02 PM

Excerpt from Joseph Campbell's, The Power of Myth ...

The vision of Black Elk ...

He says, "I saw myself on the central mountain of the world, the highest place, and I had a vision because I was seeing in the sacred manner of the world." And the sacred central mountain was Harney Peak in South Dakota. And then he says, "But the central mountain is everywhere."

That is a real mythological realization. It distinguishes between the local cult image, Harney Peak, and its connotation as the center of the world. The center of the world is the axis mundi, the central point, the pole around which all revolves. The central point of the world is the point where stillness and movement are together. Movement is time, but stillness is eternity. Realizing how this moment of your life is actually a moment of eternity, and experiencing the eternal aspect of what you're doing in the temporal experience -- this is the mythological experience.

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by brian0918

http://wizard.ae.krakow.pl/~drozdzj/graph/troll.jpg (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43114) We have found the enemy and he is us. :D

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Chanileslie

Yep, just as I thought. You evade the facts. So go on with you silly belief of the absurd and the rest of us will just sit here and snicker behind our hands at your ridiculousness. Your problem is obvious (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43114).

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I asked for evidence. Not myths. Not speculations. Not musings. Evidence. Like I said, if you want evidence you have to look within the mind. Have you ever considered the works of Carl Jung? (http://www.cgjungpage.org)

TheERK

11th July 2004, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
The spirit is not physical, so why do insist I prove it in that sense? Perhaps we should be looking elsewhere?

If the spirit is not physical, then what is it? Spiritual? If it is spiritual, how exactly is it that you're able to think about it with your physical brain? Perhaps you think that the thoughts in your brain are not physical. Fine. But there must be some connection between this non-physical stuff and real physical stuff, because at some point, the thoughts were transferred onto your undeniably physical keyboard. So, at the very least, there is a connection between the physical and the purported non-physical.

If such a connection exists, then who is to say science cannot pin it down? If your brain can think about it, then science should be able to describe it--that is, if it exists.

plindboe

11th July 2004, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, it's very clear that you don't know where to look.

Where can we look for this evidence then? If you believe myths are evidence, how can we decide which myths are true and which are false?

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by plindboe

Where can we look for this evidence then? If you believe myths are evidence, how can we decide which myths are true and which are false? It's good to have some good resources, two which I've already mentioned in this thread ... Joseph Campbell (http://www.online.pacifica.edu/cgl/) and Carl Jung (http://www.cgjungpage.org/).

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by TheERK

If the spirit is not physical, then what is it? Spiritual? If it is spiritual, how exactly is it that you're able to think about it with your physical brain? Perhaps you think that the thoughts in your brain are not physical. Fine. But there must be some connection between this non-physical stuff and real physical stuff, because at some point, the thoughts were transferred onto your undeniably physical keyboard. So, at the very least, there is a connection between the physical and the purported non-physical.

If such a connection exists, then who is to say science cannot pin it down? If your brain can think about it, then science should be able to describe it--that is, if it exists. Is the picture on your TV set transcendant of the workings of the TV. You bet. In fact it's an entirely different medium than the guts of your TV.

Iacchus

11th July 2004, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Science can't really "pin down" spirit, as science only deals with real objects. Has it figured out what motivates us and what emotions are for example? Or, would that just be passing gas?

Myths are not evidence of anything other than what people believed or believe. THey are not evidence of "spirit", just that people believe there is one. Am afraid all we have is what we believe (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43033&perpage=40&pagenumber=2).

plindboe

11th July 2004, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's good to have some good resources, two which I've already mentioned in this thread ... Joseph Campbell (http://www.online.pacifica.edu/cgl/) and Carl Jung (http://www.cgjungpage.org/).

I haven't read anything by those guys yet. What good evidence do they present in your opinion?

Piscivore

12th July 2004, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by plindboe

I haven't read anything by those guys yet. What good evidence do they present in your opinion?

He doesn't know, he hasn't read them either.

Iacchus

12th July 2004, 12:55 AM

The fact of the matter is I don't follow anybody. And yes I do have five or six books of Joseph Campbell's, as well as the DVD of his television series, The Power of Myth, which is excellent by the way. As for Carl Jung, I have a couple of books written by one his students, which refers to Jung numerous times, whereas a name like Jung's pops up all the time, particularly in the areas in the field of my study. In fact I can recognize much of what people say about him, mainly because I understand many of these things myself.

By the way, I have never cracked open a book by Albert Einstein, but does mean I'm not qualified to have an opinion or, some idea about who he was? The guy was a cultural icon, so what do you expect? Much like Jung was a cultural icon, except to a lessor degree.

As for plindboe's inquiry, I was going to recommend he or she do their own homework, for as you say, I'm not the reknowned authority on either. However, that doesn't mean I can't recommend them does it?

Piscivore

12th July 2004, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
The fact of the matter is I don't follow anybody.

Firstly- noone said, or implied, you "follow" anyone. Plindboe asked about evidence in Campbell and Jung supporting your assertions- evidence you cannot give, because you do not know the source materials.

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yes I do have five or six books of Joseph Campbell's, as well as the DVD of his television series, The Power of Myth, which is excellent by the way.

Are they part of this collection?
"I never said books didn't have any value. In fact I have at least 100 reference books, very few of which I crack open though. I've also read Johnson's book, albeit I don't remember too much about it. It's been awhile."

Originally posted by Iacchus
As for Carl Jung, I have a couple of books written by one his students,

If it's that Robert A Johnson fellow, the man is a nitwit. I read that book of his you recommened (well, to be honest, as much as I could stomach- it was really bad) and he really jumps from incorrect premesis to even more spurious conclusions.

Further, studying Jung in college does not make someone "one of his students" - unless this Johnson actually studied under Jung, which I somehow doubt. Even if he did, that fact alone wouldn't make his ideas correct- after all, Jung studied under Freud. :)

Originally posted by Iacchus
...which refers to Jung numerous times, whereas a name like Jung's pops up all the time, particularly in the areas in the field of my study..

I'm still not clear what "field" it is you claim to "study"- especially since your "research" entails mostly day-dreaming and what you think is clever word-play.

Originally posted by Iacchus
...In fact I can recognize much of what people say about him, mainly because I understand many of these things myself
That is because you are fitting the concepts to your pre-conceived notions, rather than trying to understand them for what they are.

Originally posted by Iacchus
By the way, I have never cracked open a book by Albert Einstein, but does mean I'm not qualified to have an opinion or, some idea about who he was?

You can have an opinion about "who he was", but you have a huge probability of that opinion being wrong. And you will not have a clue about what ideas he was trying to get across. What possible "opinion" could you have, aside from the wild hair and "really smart"? Are you aware he was dogmatic about certain aspects of physics most physicists now consider to be wrong? Do you know why he's considered a "genius"?

Let me answer: NO.

Originally posted by Iacchus
The guy was a cultural icon, so what do you expect? Much like Jung was a cultural icon, except to a lessor degree.

Michael Jackson, Pete Rose, OJ Simpson, Fatty Arbuckle (I could go on) were all "Cultural Icons" about whom public opinion was proved to be very wrong. There were deliberate lies spread about George Washington to increase his public stature that were believed by millions of schoolchildren at one time.

Originally posted by Iacchus
As for plindboe's inquiry, I was going to recommend he or she do their own homework, for as you say, I'm not the reknowned authority on either. However, that doesn't mean I can't recommend them does it?

Since you don't know what they have said, it's naive to recommend them since you have no real idea if their ideas actually do support yours.

BillHoyt

12th July 2004, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
You are in the Center of the Universe (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=61). ;)

You are in the state of confusion and heading for California, where you'll find the LaBrea tarpits.

Iacchus

12th July 2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You are in the state of confusion and heading for California, where you'll find the LaBrea tarpits. Yes, but no matter where you go, you're there. ;)

Piscivore

12th July 2004, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but no matter where you go, you're there. ;)

You've got that quote wrong (http://www.figmentfly.com/bb/q32.html).

Blue Monk

12th July 2004, 03:42 PM

Don't you feel more like you do now than you did when you came in? - sign in the Texas Chilli Parlour.

Blue Monk

12th July 2004, 03:42 PM

edited - damn double post!

Iacchus

12th July 2004, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore

You've got that quote wrong (http://www.figmentfly.com/bb/q32.html). Not from the person I heard it from. :D

Iacchus

12th July 2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Blue Monk

Don't you feel more like you do now than you did when you came in? - sign in the Texas Chilli Parlour. Yes! :D And today is the first day of the rest of your life, right?

Piscivore

12th July 2004, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Not from the person I heard it from. :D

Yet another example of the unreliability of third-party information.

plindboe

12th July 2004, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus

As for plindboe's inquiry, I was going to recommend he or she do their own homework, for as you say, I'm not the reknowned authority on either. However, that doesn't mean I can't recommend them does it?

Why is it my own homework? I'm simply asking you a question that you claim to have the knowledge about. It's easier to ask a person who have already read this material than to start a timeconsuming search through all this material myself, don't you agree? Well, I guess you have your reasons for reacting so defensively.

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Piscivore

Yet another example of the unreliability of third-party information. "No matter where you go, you're there."

Who gives a rat's ass whether it was quoted from a movie or not? Does it make it any less funny, or intriguing? So tell me, why is that everybody can't stick to the same language in the world? Is it because everything has a tendency to pop up more than once, under different times and circumstances, and we pretty much relate the meaning to ourselves? Isn't that in fact what life is all about? If there was only one original potato in the world (in the beginning), does it mean that an offshoot of that would be unedible?

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by plindboe

Why is it my own homework? I'm simply asking you a question that you claim to have the knowledge about. It's easier to ask a person who have already read this material than to start a timeconsuming search through all this material myself, don't you agree? Well, I guess you have your reasons for reacting so defensively. Usually if you have an inherent interest in something, then it goes without saying that you do your own research. Otherwise it robs of you of the joy of discovery. Which is to say, it's not up to me to chew your meals for you. ;)

Piscivore

13th July 2004, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
"No matter where you go, you're there."

Who gives a rat's ass whether it was quoted from a movie or not? Does it make it any less funny, or intriguing? So tell me, why is that everybody can't stick to the same language in the world? Is it because everything has a tendency to pop up more than once, under different times and circumstances, and we pretty much relate the meaning to ourselves? Isn't that in fact what life is all about? If there was only one original potato in the world (in the beginning), does it mean that an offshoot of that would be unedible?

Those posts were both meant to be funny.

But really, the Banzai way is recognisable and a good deal more rythmic. Yours sounds like a lame Delta Airlines commercial.

Just my $0.02US.

Piscivore

13th July 2004, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Usually if you have an inherent interest in something,

He's not "inherently interested", he's asking you to back up what you said.

But you can't. So where is your "joy of discovery"?

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by Piscivore

He's not "inherently interested", he's asking you to back up what you said.However, that's not the way it came across initially. Or is it? Neither am I a walking encyclopedia, nor do I care to be treated as such. ;)

But you can't. So where is your "joy of discovery"? From preparing and eating your own meals. Life is to be taken in context with life you see, not with what it says in some book.

Iacchus

13th July 2004, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Piscivore

But really, the Banzai way is recognisable and a good deal more rythmic. Yours sounds like a lame Delta Airlines commercial.

Just my $0.02US. However, the I way put it seemed to be more in context with what I was saying, in my opinion that is. ;)

plindboe

14th July 2004, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Usually if you have an inherent interest in something, then it goes without saying that you do your own research. Otherwise it robs of you of the joy of discovery. Which is to say, it's not up to me to chew your meals for you. ;)

The thing is that I doubt I will see it as evidence when I encounter it. I expect to read all the books and find nothing of the evidence that you say there is. I have tried this same thing in the past when discussing with believers of all sorts, telling me to read several books. In cases where I have already read the books and know them well I disagree that what they consider evidence really is evidence. Therefore I expect to discuss the evidence itself instead of running in all sorts of directions every time a believer points.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by plindboe

The thing is that I doubt I will see it as evidence when I encounter it. I expect to read all the books and find nothing of the evidence that you say there is. I have tried this same thing in the past when discussing with believers of all sorts, telling me to read several books. In cases where I have already read the books and know them well I disagree that what they consider evidence really is evidence. Therefore I expect to discuss the evidence itself instead of running in all sorts of directions every time a believer points. Hey, what do I know? Outside of the moment (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43157) that is?

Maybe Piscivore can give you the up and up on all of this? He seems to have studied it more than I have. I myself don't do a lot of studing and, unless I have an inherent interest in something, I don't usually bother. Neither do I go around trying to pin other people down to what they know, because generally it doesn't work that way, at least not for me anyway. ;)

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Usually if you have an inherent interest in something, then it goes without saying that you do your own research. Otherwise it robs of you of the joy of discovery. Which is to say, it's not up to me to chew your meals for you. ;) When I have an interest in something (inherent or not), and wish to do my own research, my first step is to see what other credible researchers have found. Of course, this does not mean I accept their findings without critical examination of their methodology, their operational definitions, their statistics. But still, the first step is to see what others have done. If I find fault with their methods, I know where to begin my own research. If I find no fault, I have no need to re-invent the wheel; I can take advantage of their work, and begin my own research where theirs ends. The joy of discovery is still very much there, but when we pay attention to the work of others, greater progress can be made in considerably less time. The scientific community, working together, can achieve more, discover more, do more, than any individual scientist (or any other researcher or thinker) could possibly do on his or her own.

I do not mind that they "rob me of the joy of discovery". Indeed, the door they open allows me to explore a new room, and discover new doors. Their discovery allows more discovery by others, not less.

Which is to say, your meal-chewing metaphor misses the boat entirely (to mix metaphors disturbingly). Your refusal to participate in a community of learning, eschewing progress in favor of an illusion of "joy" (I say "illusion", because being part of a scientific community instead of a solitary researcher opens so many more opportunities for the "joy of discovery"), actively takes you out of the real action! Your safe little space, your little joy of discovery, effectively isolates you from participating in real discovery, and from real joy.
I myself don't do a lot of studing and, unless I have an inherent interest in something, I don't usually bother. Neither do I go around trying to pin other people down to what they know, because generally it doesn't work that way, at least not for me anyway. Yup...pretty much what I expected. Your style isolates you from the vast majority of the "joy of discovery". Sorry, man.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 07:17 PM

All I or anyone else has is the moment (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43157), and if you don't find your happiness there, you will never find it. ;) Look at little children, what else do they need besides a couple of crude implements and the present moment, to become the happiest creatures on the face of the planet? So, I have no need for you and your trying to pin me down with all your needless stereotyping.

Piscivore

14th July 2004, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Look at little children, what else do they need besides a couple of crude implements and the present moment, to become the happiest creatures on the face of the planet?

If you had spent any time with children at all, you would know that, while your assertion is essentially correct, the child involved will get bored of the activity in about 40 seconds. Children are natural explorers, never satisfied to sit and dwell on one activity.
And they are not just mindlessly contemplating "the present moment", either- a box becomes a pirate ship, a stick the wand holding back the wrath of Voldemort, a keyring the One Ring that must be destroyed in the dryer of Mount Doom. Then, sometimes they are building towers out of lawn furniture, or comparing leaves of the yard plants, or they are freezing different liquids to find out what happens. This "happiness" you seem to value- it's not brainless contentment. It is using their brains.

Maybe that's just my kids, though.

edited to expand the examples

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
All I or anyone else has is the moment (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43157), and if you don't find your happiness there, you will never find it. ;) Look at little children, what else do they need besides a couple of crude implements and the present moment, to become the happiest creatures on the face of the earth? So, I have no need for you to try and pin me down to all your needless stereotyping. If that was addressed to me...I did not stereotype you. I explained my own joy of discovery. If you feel slighted, I am sorry--perhaps you recognise that my way opens more doors to discovery, allows more exploration, finds more joy. You already know I will not click on your link--I assume it leads to another of your threads. (am I right?)

"Look at the little children..." I used to own and operate a daycare center. You'd be surprised at the variability that exists in terms of quality from daycare to daycare. Some honestly believe that all the kids need is "a couple of crude implements and the present moment"...Others take advantage of the curiosity of children (and the accumulated knowledge of those who have dedicated their lives to studying this curiosity) to really explore. To have an answer when a child asks "what is this?" To recognise the cognitive capabilities of children of various ages and develop activities appropriate to each age. To (and I remember this like it was yesterday) spend a week preparing them for a total eclipse of the sun, so that when it comes, they enjoy it on many levels instead of wondering why it got a bit dark for a while... When you suggest that we need not pay attention to research in order to improve the daycare experience, you (and, sadly, it is not just you) shortchange the most precious resource we have. Your suggestion that examination of the moment spoils the moment (and it honestly boils down to "ignorance is bliss") runs counter to the experience of virtually everyone here! DoesPhil Plait (http://www.badastronomy.com/) enjoy the night sky less than you do? Heavens, no! (pun intended.) Knowledge enhances joy, it does not detract from it.

But then...I suppose I do not know the joy you experience, examining your own thoughts from your own perspective. I suppose I could be wrong...

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore

If you had spent any time with children at all, you would know that, while your assertion is essentially correct, the child involved will get bored of the activity in about 40 seconds. Children are natural explorers, never satisfied to sit and dwell on one activity.

Maybe that's just my kids, though. Ever notice how the more sophisticated and expensive toys you give them, the more spoiled and selfish they get?

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ever notice how the more sophisticated and expensive toys you give them, the more spoiled and selfish they get? Please document this. Or is it a bald assertion?

Then, please indicate how it addresses your point. We spoke of research, not materialism. "Sophisticated and expensive toys" applies to anything from tickle-me-Elmo to a microscope.

Lastly, operationally define "spoiled and selfish". By some definitions, your statement appears to suggest that the key to improving our daycare situation is to massively cut funding. If you are right, this represents an easy solution to a major problem! Even wealthy parents will be fighting to get their kids into the cheapest and least qualified (under current assumptions, that is) daycares out there! Please, Iacchus...back up this statement. It is far too important for us to suspect that you snatched it out of thin air.

(BTW, choosing daycare as a topic might not have been your best move....)

Piscivore

14th July 2004, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ever notice how the more sophisticated and expensive toys you give them, the more spoiled and selfish they get?

That's not a causal relationship- it is indiscriminate quantity that spoils children, not "sophisticated and expensive". Are you claiming that children a century ago, or two, were not "spoiled"? Ever heard of "Little Lord Fauntleroy"?

My son's most prized gift was his Playstation. Yet this is a boy that never begs for candy in the store, and went a whole week's vacation without asking for a single souvenier.

So- no, I have not observed that. And I daresay I've had more direct experience with children than you.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 08:19 PM

Just a general observation that's all.

scribble

14th July 2004, 08:20 PM

Need I suppose is food, air, and little else besides, but I can think of a few things that <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori> absolutely benefitted me </a> as a youngster.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

Please document this. Or is it a bald assertion?Let's just say that the more that your give your kids in, attempt to bribe them to be good perhaps? is not necessarily better, Okay? And I'm talking about small children here anyway. They don't require sophistication and spoils to have fun.

Piscivore

14th July 2004, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just a general observation that's all.

Thus illustrating the need to test hypothesies we create from our observation. You came up with a plausible, but wrong conclusion.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore

Thus illustrating the need to test hypothesies we create from our observation. You came up with a plausible, but wrong conclusion. No.

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just a general observation that's all. The observation of one individual.

Gee...don't ya wish there was some way to enhance our powers of observation, to multiply the "general observation" of an individual to encompass an entire community? And what is more...don't ya wish there was some method by which we could apply controls when needed, to reduce the noise, reduce the possibility that some uncontrolled-for variable was exerting an influence... And don't ya wish we could communicate these observations to one another, to subject them to the critical inquiry of interested others, so that unfounded beliefs (after all, any one of us is apt to see some wild, freakish, chance occurance) are winnowed away?

Oh, yeah, we can do all that. It's called science.

It is not inferior to your "general observation", Iacchus, but far superior. Your "general observation" is not worth the powder to blow it up. Let me guess: you have not even based your "general observation" on a systematic investigation of the phenomenon. My guess (please tell me if I am right or wrong) is that your "general observation" is, in fact, simply your first recollection of either your own experience (which we know is not remembered accurately) or your recollection of what somebody told you (which is subject to the same distortion...but twice...). Tell me, Iaccus--is your "general observation" based on systematic study of the phenomenon, or is it merely your casual thoughts on the matter? I really want to know.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 08:38 PM

What does all this writ got to do with living in the moment by the way? I mean why do I have to explain my every single action to you? Doesn't that kind of detract from the moment? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43157)

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Let's just say that the more that your give your kids in, attempt to bribe them to be good perhaps? is not necessarily better, Okay? And I'm talking about small children here anyway. They don't require sophistication and spoils to have fun. I asked you to document your assertion, not to move your goalposts. "Let's just say" you do that.

Oh...it would also be acceptable for you to retreat, admit that you have no clue about this topic, and move on. Frankly, I think that is your better path.

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What does all this writ got to do with living in the moment by the way? I mean why do I have to explain my every single action to you? Doesn't that kind of detract from the moment? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43157) Strawman. You do not have to explain every single action. You have, however, been asked to support specific assertions you have made. (no, not clicking your link. Is it to one of your own threads?)

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

Then, please indicate how it addresses your point. We spoke of research, not materialism. "Sophisticated and expensive toys" applies to anything from tickle-me-Elmo to a microscope.Research? Everything exists right here and right now in the present moment (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43157). What else do we need, besides an active imagination perhaps?

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 08:47 PM

Yes, the moment (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43157) transcends both time and space. Even you! ;)

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 08:51 PM

By they way, does anyone think dolphins live in the moment? You bet! :D Why do you think they're so happy?

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Research? Everything exists right here and right now in the present moment (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43157). What else do we need, besides an active imagination perhaps? Let me guess--another link to your own thread.

If you honestly believe this...you have my pity.

If everything exists in the here and now, then does not the research also exist here and now? Why, then, do you ignore it? What else do you need, besides the ability to critically examine the research? Could it be that you fear the possibility that your solipsistic world view will be seen as the house of cars that it is? Why are you afraid of looking at what others have found?

Are you really that insecure?

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 08:53 PM

The only place you will find God is in the moment. ;)

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
By they way, does anyone think dolphins live in the moment? You bet! :D Why do you think they're so happy? By the way, did you know that some folks have dedicated their lives to studying the behavior (and presumably, the thought processes) of dolphins? Did you know that this research is fascinating? Did you know that it opens a myriad of doors to further research (and the joy of discovery)? Do you have the slightest desire to actually go out and read what somebody has discovered about the lives of dolphins?

...didn't think so.

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
The only place you will find God is in the moment. ;) You say that as if it is enticing. It is not.

Piscivore

14th July 2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Research? Everything exists right here and right now in the present moment (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43157). What else do we need, besides an active imagination perhaps?

Do you pay your rent by the month? Buy groceries in advance of the present meal? Fill your gas tank? Copy down your work schedule for the week?

Why, if nothing exists but the present moment?

Piscivore

14th July 2004, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
The only place you will find God is in the moment. ;)

whoosh... the moment's passed. God is dead.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore

Do you pay your rent by the month? Buy groceries in advance of the present meal? Fill your gas tank? Copy down your work schedule for the week? Why, if nothing exists but the present moment? Yes, but I rarely think about it in advance, in the sense that I plan it out anyway.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore

whoosh... the moment's passed. God is dead. God is alive and within us. ;)

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio
You say that as if it is enticing. It is not. However, the moment is all there is -- and, believe it or not -- including all there is. ;)

RabbiSatan

14th July 2004, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
God is alive and within us. ;)

Whatever you say! Who cares if we need proof!

:crazy: :crazy:

Piscivore

14th July 2004, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
God is alive and within us. ;)

Sorry, thought you said god was in "the moment".

Piscivore

14th July 2004, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but I rarely think about it in advance, in the sense that I plan it out anyway.

Yes, but your landlord does- how can he, if there is nothing but "the moment"?

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Whatever you say! Who cares if we need proof!

:crazy: :crazy: Do you believe that the moment is Eternal? And, is not God Eternal also? Now, if you were to look for God, were do you think you would find Him? Certainly not outside of the moment and subject to time and space, right? So haven't I given you at least a clue right there? So what's the problem then? ;)

RabbiSatan

14th July 2004, 09:17 PM

Piscivore

14th July 2004, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe that the moment is Eternal? And, is not God Eternal also? Now, if you were to look for God, were do you think you would find Him? Certainly not outside of the moment and subject to time and space, right? So haven't I given you at least a clue right there? So what's the problem then? ;)

No, No, In the work of fiction called "the Bible"- he is one of the principle characters therein, Nonsense, No, and Your basic lack of understanding of anything outside your own fantasies.

Let me know if that wants clarifying.

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, the moment is all there is -- and, believe it or not -- including all there is. ;) Whatever gets you through the night, Iacchus. Whether it means anything or not.

You know, I was offended by Penn's "heroin" comment at TAM2...but now I see his point. Sorry, Penn, I take it all back. I was wrong, you were right. My apologies.

Piscivore

14th July 2004, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio
You know, I was offended by Penn's "heroin" comment at TAM2...but now I see his point. Sorry, Penn, I take it all back. I was wrong, you were right. My apologies.

I haven't heard it, what was it?

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

You know, I was offended by Penn's "heroin" comment at TAM2...but now I see his point. Sorry, Penn, I take it all back. I was wrong, you were right. My apologies. What are we reminiscing and getting all sentimental here? Besides, I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore

No, No, In the work of fiction called "the Bible"- he is one of the principle characters therein, Nonsense, No, and Your basic lack of understanding of anything outside your own fantasies.

Let me know if that wants clarifying. Bible? What is that? I don't live inside the Bible.

Piscivore

14th July 2004, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Bible? What is that? I don't live inside the Bible.

You must, you've quoted it extensively to me.

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore

I haven't heard it, what was it? Basically, Penn's reply to those people who claim "what harm does believing these things do? It makes people feel better!"....was....[i]"Heroin! You'll feel better for the rest of your life! If you don't care about reality, and all you care about is feeling good...good for you--have some heroin!".

Some found it offensive. I used to think it was an extremist response. Now I see it is no more extremist than its target.

dmarker

14th July 2004, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
God is alive and within us. ;)

Just admit god is in your head and get back to your life.

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 09:40 PM

BTW, has anyone else noticed how it seems Iacchus has dodged responsibility for his ludicrous comments about child-rearing?

I won't forget, Iacchus. You need to support them, or admit your ignorance.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore

You must, you've quoted it extensively to me. It only exists to the extent that I'm aware that it exists, for me anyway. ;) Otherwise the moment takes precedent.

RabbiSatan

14th July 2004, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
It only exists to the extent that I'm aware that it exists, for me anyway. ;) Otherwise the moment takes precedent.

So we're only figments of your imagination, and the moon doesn't exists when you're not looking at it? Right - Gotcha, run along now.

Piscivore

14th July 2004, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio
BTW, has anyone else noticed how it seems Iacchus has dodged responsibility for his ludicrous comments about child-rearing?

I won't forget, Iacchus. You need to support them, or admit your ignorance.

The next thing he's going to do is quote the passage in the bible where Jesus says unless one is as a child one cannot come unto him.

Oh, wait, now he says he doesn't even know what the bible is.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Piscivore

The next thing he's going to do is quote the passage in the bible where Jesus says unless one is as a child one cannot come unto him.

Oh, wait, now he says he doesn't even know what the bible is. How can you be aware of anything other than in the moment? So yes, it is possible to both know and not to know. Or, was that even the question? :D I think that was in Shakespeare, right? ;)

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
How can you be aware of anything other than in the moment? So yes, it is possible to both know and not to know. Or, was that even the question? :D I think that was I in Shakespeare, right? ;) We already have Pillory. We don't need this.

Piscivore

14th July 2004, 09:53 PM

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

BTW, has anyone else noticed how it seems Iacchus has dodged responsibility for his ludicrous comments about child-rearing?

I won't forget, Iacchus. You need to support them, or admit your ignorance. I am ignorant of anything that I'm unaware of, including you ... most of the time. :D

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
I am ignorant of anything that I'm unaware of, including you ... most of the time. :D And willfully ignorant of virtually everything that the kind people here have tried to make you aware of.

Your dodge is noted. Care to address the support for your "general observation"? Care to retract it?

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 09:57 PM

By the way, thus far, nobody's been able to demonstrate the ability to pin the spirit of Iacchus down. :D Oh, and did anyone get a chance to catch my signature? ;)

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
By the way, thus far, nobody's been able to demonstrate the ability to pin the spirit of Iacchus down. :D Oh, and did anyone chance catch my signature? ;) You have not demonstrated a spirit for us to pin down. I also have not found any square circles.

As for your signature...you know I will not click on your links, but let me guess. One is your forum, the other is a thread here. Close?

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

And willfully ignorant of virtually everything that the kind people here have tried to make you aware of.What, that material existence is a dead end?

Your dodge is noted. Care to address the support for your "general observation"? Care to retract it? Much ado about nothing.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

You have not demonstrated a spirit for us to pin down. I also have not found any square circles.

As for your signature...you know I will not click on your links, but let me guess. One is your forum, the other is a thread here. Close? Meaning is in the moment ... in what it means to me, not you. ;)

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

So we're only figments of your imagination, and the moon doesn't exists when you're not looking at it? Right - Gotcha, run along now. Well you certainly wouldn't know about it if you weren't aware of it, right? ;)

Mercutio

14th July 2004, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What, that material existence is a dead end? This thread is a dead end.

You have demonstrated, yet once more, a complete lack of respect for those who interact with you. You evade, distract, change topics....and ask endless useless questions.

You have been asked, reasonably, to support some claims that you made. Maybe this is why you ask so many questions--you are not asked to support those. Anyway, you have, it seems, chosen not to support your assertions, nor to retract them, despite several opportunities. It is clear that you do not mean to interact in any reasonable manner.

I have said all I need to; feel free to have the last word, or last several posts. Unless reactance kicks in, I expect them to have more question marks than periods, and to link the unwary reader to other threads in which the same tripe is chewed over.

If you ever decide to actually support (or retract) your claims, feel free to alert me. I may or may not check back in here. I am perfectly willing to discuss things with you, to debate, to explore...but it is patently obvious that you are not willing to extend the same courtesy.

Have fun.

Iacchus

14th July 2004, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

This thread is a dead end. Why is it so important to pin everything down and crucify life? Why should life show any respect towards you in that sense?

Piscivore

14th July 2004, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio
This thread is a dead end.

You have demonstrated, yet once more, a complete lack of respect for those who interact with you. You evade, distract, change topics....and ask endless useless questions.

You have been asked, reasonably, to support some claims that you made. Maybe this is why you ask so many questions--you are not asked to support those. Anyway, you have, it seems, chosen not to support your assertions, nor to retract them, despite several opportunities. It is clear that you do not mean to interact in any reasonable manner.

I have said all I need to; feel free to have the last word, or last several posts. Unless reactance kicks in, I expect them to have more question marks than periods, and to link the unwary reader to other threads in which the same tripe is chewed over.

If you ever decide to actually support (or retract) your claims, feel free to alert me. I may or may not check back in here. I am perfectly willing to discuss things with you, to debate, to explore...but it is patently obvious that you are not willing to extend the same courtesy.

Have fun.

The sad part, Merc, is that now he's going to feel dead clever and proud of himself that he "outwitted" us. That he didn't get "pinned down", in his words. Meanwhile losing out on the wider world he's cowering from, and the honest human contact he really craves. The guy's like fifty years old and he's as puerile as my eight year old. :(

Iacchus

15th July 2004, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Piscivore

The guy's like fifty years old and he's as puerile as my eight year old. Well, thank you very much!

"The love of the world, puts you at emnity with God," by the way.

But seriously folks (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43260) ... :D

scribble

15th July 2004, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
You know what's funny, is that in a world which has no true meaning -- of course it does, otherwise how could these very words appear before you? -- that we sure take ourselves a bit too seriously! ;) And then you want to pin me down, in all seriousness, and claim that I'm irrational. And yet what right do you have to claim anything is irrational, if there is no meaning to begin with? What a joke! :D

So, does meaning exist in the absolute sense? Yes! :D

Careful, Iacchus.

Rule #6: You will not “spam” or “flood” the Forum.

Posting this same thing to multiple threads is the textbook definition of spamming.

Iacchus

15th July 2004, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by scribble

Careful, Iacchus.

Rule #6: You will not “spam” or “flood” the Forum.

Posting this same thing to multiple threads is the textbook definition of spamming. Will remember that. Thanks! In fact am changing that right now. ;)

Lothian

15th July 2004, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, thank you very much!

"The love of the world, puts you at emnity with God," by the way.
So I presume to be on gods side you need to hate the world

Iacchus

15th July 2004, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Lothian

So I presume to be on gods side you need to hate the world No, I just don't take the whole thing too seriously. It's only temporary, right? ;)

Hey, did you know that the moment (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43157) is Eternal and that both time and space exist within the moment? So tell me, which is more substantial? It also kind of tells us where the Big Bang came from too now doesn't it? From the Eternal Moment which, is a dimension unto itself ... spiritual dimension that is. ;)

Iacchus

15th July 2004, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Piscivore

Yes, but your landlord does- how can he, if there is nothing but "the moment"? Simply, because the moment is everywhere. ;) Hey, doesn't it kind of make it sound like the Presence of God is bearing down on you? And maybe this is how we come to discover who He is?

Hardenbergh

15th July 2004, 07:49 AM

I just wish I could grasp this concept of "being in the moment" because it seems like I'm everywhere else except in the moment. I'm always thinking about what I should be doing. I'm always thinking that I should be doing anything but what I'm doing at the moment. It seems to elude me. I often have trouble focusing on a particular task because I never seem to be in the moment. It's almost like I'm trying to remember what I'm supposed to be doing "right now" and the now that I'm in isn't really there. I know this doesn't make any sense so if you can make any sense of it then my hat's off to you. It just seems that the moment is always one step ahead of me.

Iacchus

15th July 2004, 10:13 AM

I don't grasp it in as much as I become aware of the fact that I exist, in the moment. It's a matter of becoming aware of yourself as you're doing something, almost to the point of being a bit self-conscious. Also, it tends to work better when you find something that you enjoy doing, this way you aren't so easily distracted. If you have too many things that you're trying to do or, too many things that you're trying to remember (if you enjoy doing it that almost comes automatically) then it doesn't work too well.

By the way, you don't have to worry about being in the moment, because no matter what you do, you're already there. ;) The moment takes care of everything.

Hardenbergh

17th July 2004, 10:45 AM

Iacchus,

Does being "in the moment" make you divinely happy or is it more or less just a quiet calmness? I know you talk about a stillness. How does it affect your interactions with other people by always being in the moment?

Mercutio

17th July 2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus

By the way, you don't have to worry about being in the moment, because no matter what you do, you're already there. ;) The moment takes care of everything. So by your definition, it is impossible not to be in the moment, no? Thus it is utterly impossible (for anyone, let alone for you) to know that being "in the moment" is different from not being in the moment. Your own definition shows this to be an indefensible idea. If everything is in the moment ("no matter what you do"), then we cannot use the concept to differentiate times, places, events...anything. It is utterly useless.

Dancing David

17th July 2004, 01:43 PM

The mind is much like a cow on the path, it is likely that it will follow the path but often the cow wanders.

Mindfulness is a practise of bringing all the different pieces of a human to the same table at the same moment.

Multitasking is for mindless computers, it is better to fill yourself with your acts, and to focus on one at a time.

The second barrier is the nature of awareness.

Navigator

17th July 2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
The mind is much like a cow on the path, it is likely that it will follow the path but often the cow wanders.

Mindfulness is a practise of bringing all the different pieces of a human to the same table at the same moment.

Multitasking is for mindless computers, it is better to fill yourself with your acts, and to focus on one at a time.

The second barrier is the nature of awareness.

I dreampt of a cow last night, and the first thing I read this morning is "the mind is much like a wandering cow..."

Mindfulness is a practise of bringing all the different pieces of a human to the same table at the same moment.

Interesting expression. 'At the same moment" - always NOW is that moment, and indeed to bring together the 'different' parts of ones individuality is a cow of a task to accomplish.
:)
Then one can bring together the separate moments of every individual, to form an even greater picture of reality...but such an ability is hard to master.

Multitasking is for mindless computers, it is better to fill yourself with your acts, and to focus on one at a time.

I can multitask mindfully, and as a result, my acts tend to automate...which is not necessarily either ;good; or ;evil' - it just is...my actions in every moment are more and more aligned with my clear structure of belief systems, and after a while these well defined beliefs act/react in any given situation through my personal human experience in ways which tend to enhance and express attitude designed to support Unity and Wholeness.

Everyone has belief systems, and these definitely propel individuals...I have seen little evidence to suggest that supporting sceptisim or christianity outright, to being an act which enhances Unity and Wholeness.

So "There is a God" or "There isn't a God" becomes neither here nor there in relation to either branch of this decidedly ununifing belief system...at least - that is the evidence which presents itself before my mindfull awareness.

Iacchus

17th July 2004, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

So by your definition, it is impossible not to be in the moment, no? Thus it is utterly impossible (for anyone, let alone for you) to know that being "in the moment" is different from not being in the moment. Your own definition shows this to be an indefensible idea. If everything is in the moment ("no matter what you do"), then we cannot use the concept to differentiate times, places, events...anything. It is utterly useless. The difference being, we have the option of being aware of ourselves in the moment (for example when we're abouts to do something stupid) and not being aware of ourselves in the moment. However, all the fretting in the world (constantly worrying about whether we're going to screw up) is not going to keep us from doing stupid things.

Iacchus

18th July 2004, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Hardenbergh

Iacchus,

Does being "in the moment" make you divinely happy or is it more or less just a quiet calmness? I know you talk about a stillness. How does it affect your interactions with other people by always being in the moment? Where did I mention anything about stillness? I think you must have confused me with somebody else. The moment is merely the focal point of our existence, of which our whole world revolves. Certainly there's no reason why we shouldn't experience the sensation of being alive in the moment. In fact, this is what it's all about. ;)

Mercutio

18th July 2004, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
The difference being, we have the option of being aware of ourselves in the moment (for example when we're abouts to do something stupid) and not being aware of ourselves in the moment. However, all the fretting in the world (constantly worrying about whether we're going to screw up) is not going to keep us from doing stupid things. If we are always in the moment, how does being aware of it matter? We cannot be aware of not being in the moment, after all, since we cannot not be in the moment. And now you say that we will continue to do stupid things, apparently whether we are aware we are in the moment or not.

Sounds like a completely useless notion to me. I honestly do not see what possible difference there can be due to awareness of the moment. If there is no difference...it is impossible to know about this "in the moment" thing.

Iacchus

19th July 2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio

If we are always in the moment, how does being aware of it matter? We cannot be aware of not being in the moment, after all, since we cannot not be in the moment. And now you say that we will continue to do stupid things, apparently whether we are aware we are in the moment or not. No, I'm saying it's not important to worry about it so much, because to the degree that you, then you're not living in the moment, in which case it becomes counter productive.

Sounds like a completely useless notion to me. I honestly do not see what possible difference there can be due to awareness of the moment. If there is no difference...it is impossible to know about this "in the moment" thing. When we get caught up in daydreams and worry and whatnot, this is when we're likely to lose sight of what's happening in the moment, and do stupid things perhaps?